JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a review application filed against the judgment dated 22-11-82 of the Honble Member, Board of Revenue. 2. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that there was a second appeal pending in the Honble Board of Revenue. An amendment application was filed in the court in year 1980 by Ramjit. It is prayed in the application that in the written statement some amendment may be allowed to the effect that Smt. Rekha Devi had transferred the land in suit by sale deed dated 18-2-26 in favour of the father of the applicant i.e. Gooran. It is also alleged that the courts below have refused to look into the sale deed only on the ground because it was not mentioned in the written statement. The objection was also filed against this application. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the argument was heard on the amendment application but the judgment was given on the merit of the case. The learned counsel for the other party has stated that the arguments on merits were heard and the amendment application also depended on the merit of the case and it was not correct to say that the arguments were heard only on the application. 5. Apart from that in the judgment dated 22-11-82 it is mentioned in paragraph 5 that the learned counsels for the parties were heard. In the order sheet dated 8-11-82 it is written. "Heard, Judgment to be pronounced on 22-11-82." 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the application of amendment has not been disposed off hence it was not proper for the court to decide the case on merits. He relied on a ruling reported in 1969 A. L. J. page 10 (Kedar Mali v. Banshidhar). In this case it was the question of abatement and there was a substitution application which had not been decided hence it was held that the application must have been decided before giving any finding on the question of abatement. The second ruling relied by the learned counsel is Kamla Devi v. U.P. Sharma 1985 A.R.C. part I page 365. In this case it was the question of abatement and there was a substitution application which had not been decided hence it was held that the application must have been decided before giving any finding on the question of abatement. The second ruling relied by the learned counsel is Kamla Devi v. U.P. Sharma 1985 A.R.C. part I page 365. In that case there was an application and the disposal of that application was mandatory hence it was held that the final order could not be passed without passing any order on the application the disposal of which is mandatory. The third ruling relied on by the learned counsel is Ram Surat v. Shitla Prasad, 1978 A.I.R. Allahabad page 270. In this case the court did not see or comment on the evidence in the record in respect of the right of passage. Hence it was held that review of such cases was proper. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the parties were not heard on merits and it was decided without hearing the parties on merits. 8. The application for amendment of the written statement was filed by Ramjit on 31-12-80. After that no where in the order-sheet it is written or mentioned that the case was adjourned for the argument on that application. On the other hand in the order sheet dated 8-11-82 it is mentioned, "Heard, Judgment to be pronounced on 22-11-82". Hence it is clear that the arguments were heard on the merits of the case and not on the amendment application only. In Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal, 1964 A.I.R. Supreme Court page 377 it is held by the Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 5, "Where a statement appears in the judgments of a court that a particular thing happened or did not happen before it, it ought not ordinarily to be permitted to he challenged by a party unless both the parties to the litigation agree, that the statement is wrong, or the court itself admits that the statement is erroneous." In the present case neither the parties admit nor the court itself admitted that the parties were not heard on merits. Hence the contention of the learned counsel tor the applicant cannot be accepted to be correct. Hence the contention of the learned counsel tor the applicant cannot be accepted to be correct. The learned counsel tried to stress on the point that the review application was admitted by that court hence it was indirectly admitted by that court that the case was not heard on merits. But in our opinion this inference cannot be drawn from the fact Admission of the review application can be on the ground whether it was proper or not to decide the case on merits without disposing of the amendment application. Hence from the statements in the judgment it is clear that the parties-were heard on merits. 9. As discussed above the order on the application for the amendment of the written statement is not mandatory. Apart from this in the middle of the paragraph 7 of the judgment concerned it is held. "These plots were occupancy tenancy of Smt. Rekha and, therefore, they could not be transferred either under the Act of 1881 or under the U.R. Tenancy Act of 1939." In other words the effect of the transfer by Smt. Rekha has been discussed in the judgment itself and it cannot be said that without the said amendment the party was prejudiced. Either on the technical ground or according to the rules or on the basis of equity it cannot be said that the omission to pass order on the amendment application will make the judgment on merits illegal. 10. We therefore find that there is no ground for allowing the review application. Hence it is dismissed. Costs easy.